1 Music and Mood Regulation

2 during the early-stages of the COVID-19 Pandemic

3
4 Sarah Hennessy¶1, Matthew Sachs¶2, Jonas Kaplan1, & Assal Habibi*1
5
1
6 Brain and Creativity Institute, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, United States
2
7 Center for Science and Society, Columbia University, New York, NY, United States
¶
8 co-first authors, these authors contributed equally to this work
9
10 *corresponding author, [email protected]
11
12
13
14 Abstract
15
16 Music-listening can be an effective strategy for regulating affect, leading to positive wellbeing.
17 However, it is unclear how differences in culture and disposition can impact music’s affective
18 benefits. The COVID-19 pandemic provides a unique opportunity to study how music is used to
19 cope with stress, loss, and unease across the world. We used an online survey to test if people
20 from four different countries used music to manage their emotions during quarantine and if the
21 functions of music depended on empathy, anxiety, depression, or country of residence. We
22 found a positive relationship between the use of music-listening for affect regulation and current
23 wellbeing, particularly for participants from India. While people with stronger symptoms of
24 depression and anxiety used music differently, the end result was still a positive change in
25 affect. Our findings highlight the universality of music’s affective potency and its ability to help
26 people manage an unprecedented life stressor.
27
28 Keywords: emotion, music, COVID-19, well-being
29
30
31 Introduction
32
33 In March 2020, the COVID-19 outbreak forced people across the globe into quarantine.
34 Communities around the world sought innovative ways to cope with growing anxiety,
35 uncertainty, boredom, and social isolation. Music seemed to provide solace. Videos of
36 apartment block performances, synchronous nightly cheering, and collective sing-a-longs from
37 all over the world were shared widely across the internet. When Italian tenor Andrea
38 Bocelli performed a solo Easter concert from an empty Milan Cathedral, the broadcast was
39 viewed 35 million times.
40
41 These anecdotes suggest that across cultures, music-listening helped people cope with the
42 stress, uncertainty, and despair that stemmed from the pandemic. Music-listening can be
43 beneficial for health and well-being across the lifespan (Hanser & Mandel, 2010; Laukka, 2007;
44 Miranda & Gaudreau, 2011; Saarikallio, 2011), and listening to music reduces self-reported
45 feelings of anxiety, and physiological measures of stress (Panteleeva et al., 2018). Music may
46 also alleviate symptoms related to major psychological and mental disorders (Chan et al., 2011;
47 Loue et al., 2008) by helping people cope with negative affective states (Miranda & Claes, 2009)
48 and to balance their mood (Västfjäll, 2002).
49
50 One way music listening can impact wellbeing is through its ability to induce strong emotions
51 (Habibi & Damasio, 2014; Juslin & Laukka, 2004; Sloboda et al., 2001). Indeed, its emotional
52 potency is consistently cited as one of the main reasons that people, across demographic
53 groups, listen to music (Randall & Rickard, 2017). Because of this, music is also recognized as
54 an effective tool for affect regulation, i.e. the process of changing the incidence, duration, and/or
55 intensity of an affective state. We therefore hypothesized that in response to a stressful event,
56 like the COVID-19 pandemic, people would report using music to cope precisely because of its
57 ability to alter their emotional state.
58
59 There are several mechanisms by which music-listening can alter one’s affective states: by
60 relaxing us (Saarikallio & Erkkilä, 2007; van Goethem & Sloboda, 2011), by distracting us from a
61 negative mood (Thoma et al., 2012), or by allowing us to purge negative emotions (Van den Tol
62 & Edwards, 2014). Recently, the Brief Music in Mood Regulation Scale (B-MMR) was created to
63 capture these various regulatory strategies (Saarikallio, 2012). The scale, and many of its
64 subcomponents, are associated with general emotion regulation through reappraisal and using
65 music to reappraise leads to increased psychological well-being (Chin & Rickard, 2012).
66
67 Interestingly, the Discharge subscale, which refers to selecting music that reflects one’s current
68 negative affective state in order to release or purge these feelings, is not positively correlated
69 with reappraisal. This subscale is also associated with symptoms of depression and anxiety
70 (Thomson et al., 2014; Carlson et al. 2015). However, it remains uncertain if individuals who are
71 more anxious or depressed use angry or sad music to feel better or if listening to this music
72 leads to stronger feelings of anxiety or depression. The impact of music on mood likely depends
73 on the goal of the user, the situation, individual differences, the type of emotion regulation
74 strategy being used, and their pre-existing mood (Saarikallio & Erkkilä, 2007). One individual
75 difference measure that may influence this relationship is trait empathy. A particular component
76 of empathy, Fantasy, which refers to the tendency to become absorbed into the situations of
77 characters in stories, movies, and music, has been linked to the enjoyment of negative-valenced
78 music (Sachs et al., 2020). It is therefore possible that the degree to which listening to sad or
79 angry music can improve mood and well-being depends on this trait.
80
 81 The COVID-19 pandemic provides a unique opportunity in which to study cross-cultural
82 responses to a singular, unifying stressor on a grand scale. While there is evidence that, across
83 cultures, people choose to listen to music because of its affective function, certain international
84 differences have been identified (Schäfer et al., 2012; Boer et al., 2012). Given these findings,
85 we expect people to universally use music to regulate their emotions, but that the strategies,
86 effectiveness, and qualities of the music-listening may differ across cultures. Furthermore, while
87 laboratory studies have shown that music listening can aid in autonomic recovery after induction
88 of acute stress (de la Torre-Luque et al., 2017; Suda et al., 2008; Thoma et al., 2013) and
89 trauma (Zoteyeva et al., 2016), there are relatively few studies on how individuals use music to
90 regulate their emotions effectively in response to an acute stressor, such as in the context of
91 significant, global event.
92
93 To this end, we conducted a large scale multi-national study with a diverse population to explore
94 the role of music listening in mood and emotion regulation during the COVID-19 pandemic.
95 Through on-line surveys we aimed to investigate how people across the globe use music to
96 regulate their mood and alleviate the discomfort and sadness of social isolation. There were four
97 main hypotheses. One, that across cultures, individuals more personally affected by COVID-19
98 would report using music to regulate their mood. Two, that individual differences in trait
99 measures of empathy as well as symptoms of depression and anxiety would be associated with
100 different regulatory strategies with music. Three, that the relationship between music-listening
101 emotion regulation strategies and improvements in mood and wellbeing would be moderated by
102 these trait differences. Four, that these differences would be reflected in the songs that people
103 chose to listen to during the pandemic.
104
105
106 Methods
107
108 Participants
109 An online survey was distributed to individuals currently living in Italy, the United
110 Kingdom and the United States, through Prolific.co (Palan & Schitter, 2018) on April 6th, 2020
111 and April 7th, 2020. After removing participants for improper responses (i.e. missing the
112 attention check or responding too quickly), this left 148 participants from the United States (M age
113 = 29.16, 86 female), 136 from Italy (Mage = 25.81, 59 female), and 150 from the UK (M age =
114 35.83, 89 female). Participants currently living in India (N = 155, Mage = 33.47, 57 female) were
115 recruited through using CloudResearch’s Prime Panels, an online platform with more than 50
116 million participants across the globe, between April 24th and April 27th. On both platforms,
117 additional inclusion criteria included being a citizen of the country in which one resides, being a
118 native English speaker, and being between the ages of 18-65. In total, 589 people completed
119 the survey. For COVID-19 case rates at the time of data collection, see Table 1.
120
121
Total India Italy United United
States Kingdom
Gender
n 589 155 136 148 150
% Female 49 37 43 58 59
Age
Mean 31.22 33.11 25.81 29.16 35.83
 SD 10.29 10.6 6.05 9.15 11.38
COVID-19
Cases/100k 2.2 231.0 130.6 92.2
Deaths/100k 0.01 28.56 5.11 11.34
122
123
124 Table 1. Demographic and COVID-19 characteristics for study sample by country. COVID-19
125 data reflects cases per 100,000 on the day the survey was distributed in each country, as
126 reported by Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center.
127
128 Survey materials
129 The survey included several previously-published questionnaires designed to assess a
130 variety of individual difference measures. These questionnaires and a description of each are
131 listed below:
132
133 A. Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ; Kroenke et al., 2001): a brief measure of
134 symptoms/severity of depression
135 B. State and Trait Anxiety Index (STAI; Spielberger, 2010): a state and trait anxiety
136 measure
137 C. Emotion Regulation Quotient (ERQ; Gross & John, 2003): a widely used
138 measure of two types of emotional regulation strategies, cognitive reappraisal
139 and expressive suppression
140 D. Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI; Davis, 1980): a measure of empathy that
141 assesses four subcomponents, including Fantasy, Perspective Taking, Empathic
142 Concern, and Personal Distress
143 E. Brief Music and Mood Questionnaire (Saarikallio, 2012): a 21-item self-report
144 instrument for assessing the use of seven different music-related mood-
145 regulation strategies. These include
146 a. Entertainment
147 b. Revival
148 c. Strong sensation
149 d. Diversion
150 e. Discharge
151 f. Mental work
152 g. Solace
153
154 In addition to these questionnaires, participants were asked about their music listening
155 habits, both currently and a year ago (prior to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic). Specifically
156 participants were asked how many hours did they listen to music on an average day/a year ago
157 and how many hours are they currently listening to music, what genre of music they most
158 commonly listen to currently/listened to a year ago, and to list 5 songs that they are frequently
159 listening to/listened to a year ago. While we understand that asking participants to
160 retrospectively report their music listening habits from a year ago may be unreliable and subject
161 to certain biases, we wanted to control for the fact that music preferences might change given
162 the time of year for example during the holidays. Therefore, in order to directly compare
163 changes before and after the COVID-19 pandemic, we felt that it was best to ask about listening
164 habits during the same time of year, a year prior. After listing songs that they are currently
165 listening to, we directly asked participants the degree to which listening to music had made
166 them feel better during the pandemic by asking how strongly they agree/disagree with the
167 following statements:
168 1. I have been turning to music listening or playing to take my mind off things
169 2. I find music listening or playing to be helpful in coping with the current crisis.
170 3. I have been listening to music more than usual to make myself feel better.
171
172
173 Participants additionally answered several YES/NO questions to assess distress, perceived risk,
174 and change of mood related to the COVID-19 pandemic (see Supplementary Materials for
175 details).
176
177 Finally, demographic questions were collected including a brief measure of socioeconomic
178 status (using the MacArthur Scale of Subjective Social Status; Adler et al., 2000), years of
179 musical training, age, and gender.
180
181 Statistical analyses
182 Statistical analyses were performed using R (R Core Team, 2020). For all tests for
183 significance, an alpha level of 0.05 was used. To assess the degree to which each individual
184 was personally affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, a continuous measure of COVID severity
185 was calculated by totaling the number of YES responses for each participant to the four COVID-
186 related questions in the survey (did you personally test positive, were you personally
187 hospitalized, did you experience financial loss, are there shelter-in-place orders where you are)
188 and adding this to the question regarding degree of self-isolating (4 - 100%, 1 - none). This
189 measure of objective hardship related to COVID-19 will subsequently be referred to as COVID
190 severity. In addition to our stated hypotheses, as a sanity-check, we tested for differences
191 between countries in COVID-19 perceived risk and severity, as well as scores on the PHQ-9,
192 STAI, and ERQ, while controlling for age, gender, education, and SES using ANCOVA models.
193 For all ANOVA models, post-hoc comparisons between countries were conducted using Tukey’s
194 Honest Significant Difference.
195
196 Music in mood regulation by country and COVID-19 severity.
197 Per our first hypothesis, we tested whether differences exist across countries in terms of
198 the ways in which music is used to regulate mood. To this end, a series of separate 1-way
199 ANCOVAs were conducted to assess the effects of country and COVID-19 personal risk on
200 subscales, and overall scores, on the B-MMR, while controlling for age, gender, education,
201 SES, and musicianship.
202
203 Individual differences and the function of music to regulate mood.
204 To test our second hypothesis, separate 1-way ANCOVAs were conducted to assess the
205 effects of state anxiety (STAI), depressive symptoms (PHQ-9), and empathy (IRI) on B-MMR
206 scores and subscales, while controlling for country, age, gender, education, SES, and
207 musicianship.
208
209 Using music to regulate mood and wellbeing.
210 Per our third hypothesis, we assessed the degree to which music-listening improved
211 mood, as well as the interaction between personality, music regulatory strategies and
212 improvements in mood.
213
214 Changes in music listening habits.
215 To assess changes in music listening habits and preferences during the COVID-19
216 pandemic, Spotify playlists were created that contained the songs that participants reported
217 listening to pre-COVID and during COVID. Playlists were analyzed using a Python library to
218 access data on Spotify’s Web API https://github.com/plamere/spotipy. Auditory features were
219 extracted from each song, which included:
220 1. Acousticness: real value between 0 and 1 measuring the likeliness that the track is
221 acoustic
222 2. Danceability: real value between 0 and 1 measuring how danceable the song is
223 3. Energy: real value between 0 and 1 measuring intensity and activity;
224 4. Valence: real value between 0 and 1 measuring whether the song inspires
225 positive/negative emotions
226 5. Tempo: real value expressed in beats per minute.
227 6. Loudness: real value between -60 and 0 measuring how loud the song is
228 7. Mode: integer (0 or 1) indicates the modality (major or minor) of a track, the type of scale
229 from which its melodic content is derived (major is represented by 1 and minor is 0)
230
231 Separate repeated-measures ANOVAs were conducted on each acoustic variable, with country
232 as the between-subjects factor, and time (pre- or post-COVID) as the within-subjects factor.
233 Additional analyses on the music selected pre and post COVID are included in the
234 supplementary materials.
235
236 Results
237
238 Responses to COVID-19 by country.
239 COVID-19 severity and perceived risk.
240 A significant effect of country was observed in COVID-19 severity (F(3, 545) = 19.67, p
241 < 0.0001, η2= 0.09), where participants from Italy reported higher severity than those from the
242 United Kingdom (p < 0.0001) and the United States (p < 0.0001) (see Figure 1). Participants
243 from India reported higher severity than those from the United Kingdom (p < 0.001), and the
244 United States (p < 0.0001). No differences were observed between countries in perceived
245 personal risk of COVID-19 (p > 0.05).
246
247

248 Fig 1. Differences between countries in personal COVID-19 severity and perceived risk.
249
250
251 Symptoms of anxiety and depression.
252 No differences were observed between countries in symptoms of depression (PHQ-9; p
253 > 0.05). There was a significant effect of country on state anxiety (F(3,545) = 4.49, p < 0.01,
254 η2= 0.02), where participants from Italy had greater anxiety than those from the United States (p
255 < 0.05). Differences between countries on trait anxiety were not significant after correcting for
256 multiple comparisons (p > 0.05). Unsurprisingly, across all four countries, symptoms of both
257 depression and anxiety were associated with increased feelings of anxiety and depression
258 during the pandemic (anxiety: r = -0.25, p < 0.001; depression: r = -0.46, p < 0.001).
259
260
261 Music and mood regulation by country and COVID severity.
262 A significant effect of country was observed on Music and Mood Regulation total score
263 (F(3, 545) = 7.70, p < 0.0001,η 2= 0.03), where participants from India scored higher than those
264 from Italy (p < 0.05), the United Kingdom (p < 0.001), and the United States (p < 0.01; see
265 Figure 2). In addition, several subscales of the B-MMR differed significantly by country. Briefly,
266 the strategies Revival, Diversion, Solace, and Mental Work were all more likely to be endorsed
267 by participants from India than those from Italy, the United States or the UK. Furthermore, the
268 strategy of Sensation was more likely to be endorsed by participants from Italy and India than
269 those from the UK or USA (see Table 2). No effect of country was observed for the Discharge
270 nor Entertainment strategies.
271
272
273
partial η
2
Sum
Mean
partial η
2
of df F p 90% CI
Square
Squares [LL, UL]
274
275 MMR Discharge
(Intercept) 3378.58 1 3378.58 316.84 .000
age 259.37 1 259.37 24.32 .000*** .04 [.02, .07]
education 0.07 1 0.07 0.01 .934 .00 [.00, .00]
gender 80.46 1 80.46 7.55 .006** .01 [.00, .03]
SES 48.10 1 48.10 4.51 .034 .01 [.00, .03]
musician 120.39 1 120.39 11.29 .001** .02 [.01, .04]
country 74.32 3 24.77 2.32 .074 .01 [.00, .03]
Error 5811.57 545 10.66
276
277 MMR Diversion
(Intercept) 3136.86 1 3136.86 424.07 .000
age 144.80 1 144.80 19.58 .000*** .03 [.01, .06]
education 0.12 1 0.12 0.02 .900 .00 [.00, .00]
gender 5.13 1 5.13 0.69 .405 .00 [.00, .01]
SES 0.93 1 0.93 0.13 .723 .00 [.00, .01]
musician 35.36 1 35.36 4.78 .029 .01 [.00, .03]
country 220.27 3 73.42 9.93 .000*** .05 [.02, .08]
Error 4031.40 545 7.40
278
279 MMR Entertainment
(Intercept) 3658.52 1 3658.52 515.85 .000
age 125.64 1 125.64 17.72 .000*** .03 [.01, .06]
education 0.54 1 0.54 0.08 .783 .00 [.00, .01]
gender 16.02 1 16.02 2.26 .133 .00 [.00, .02]
SES 2.14 1 2.14 0.30 .583 .00 [.00, .01]
musician 28.36 1 28.36 4.00 .046* .01 [.00, .02]
country 51.22 3 17.07 2.41 .066 .01 [.00, .03]
Error 3865.26 545 7.09
280
281 MMR Mental Work
(Intercept) 3193.43 1 3193.43 486.49 .000
age 73.06 1 73.06 11.13 .001** .02 [.01, .04]
education 2.66 1 2.66 0.41 .524 .00 [.00, .01]
gender 11.83 1 11.83 1.80 .180 .00 [.00, .02]
SES 3.99 1 3.99 0.61 .436 .00 [.00, .01]
musician 57.69 1 57.69 8.79 .003** .02 [.00, .04]
country 127.70 3 42.57 6.48 .000*** .03 [.01, .06]
Error 3577.47 545 6.56
282
283 MMR Revival
(Intercept) 2946.89 1 2946.89 383.75 .000
age 134.19 1 134.19 17.47 .000*** .03 [.01, .06]
education 2.01 1 2.01 0.26 .609 .00 [.00, .01]
gender 5.24 1 5.24 0.68 .409 .00 [.00, .01]
SES 0.93 1 0.93 0.12 .728 .00 [.00, .01]
musician 25.51 1 25.51 3.32 .069 .01 [.00, .02]
country 197.08 3 65.69 8.55 .000*** .04 [.02, .07]
Error 4185.20 545 7.68
284
285 MMR Sensation
(Intercept) 3431.10 1 3431.10 570.04 .000
age 46.23 1 46.23 7.68 .006** .01 [.00, .03]
education 1.88 1 1.88 0.31 .577 .00 [.00, .01]
gender 4.99 1 4.99 0.83 .363 .00 [.00, .01]
SES 1.11 1 1.11 0.18 .668 .00 [.00, .01]
musician 110.66 1 110.66 18.38 .000*** .03 [.01, .06]
country 127.01 3 42.34 7.03 .000*** .04 [.01, .06]
Error 3280.38 545 6.02
286
287 MMR Solace
(Intercept) 3342.79 1 3342.79 481.94 .000
age 66.31 1 66.31 9.56 .002** .02 [.00, .04]
education 4.68 1 4.68 0.67 .412 .00 [.00, .01]
 gender 19.01 1 19.01 2.74 .098 .01 [.00, .02]
SES 8.06 1 8.06 1.16 .282 .00 [.00, .01]
musician 33.60 1 33.60 4.84 .028* .01 [.00, .03]
country 168.66 3 56.22 8.11 .000*** .04 [.02, .07]
Error 3780.14 545 6.94
288
289 Note. LL and UL represent the lower-limit and upper-limit of the partial η2 confidence interval,
290 respectively.
291 Table 2. ANCOVA results, country predicting each Brief Music and Mood Regulation strategy.
292
293

294 Fig 2. Differences between countries in total music and mood regulation score (B-MMR Total
295 Score)
296
297
298 A significant effect of personal COVID-19 risk was observed on music and mood regulation total
299 score, across countries, (F(1, 547) = 9.61, p < 0.05, η 2= 0.02), where personal risk of COVID-19
300 was positively correlated with use of music for mood regulation (𝛃 = 0.13; see Figure 3) as well
301 as with the Diversion subscale (F(1, 547) = 15.77, 𝛃 = 0.17, p < 0.0001, η2= 0.03). No effects of
302 personal COVID-19 risk were observed for any other B-MMR strategy. Additionally, a significant
303 effect of COVID-19 severity was observed on music and mood regulation total score, across
304 countries (F(1, 547) = 13.17, p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.02), where COVID-19 severity was positively
305 correlated with total music mood regulation score (𝛃 = 0.15). The Diversion (F(1, 547) = 5.70, 𝛃
306 = 0.10, p < 0.05, η2= 0.01), Entertainment (F(1, 547) = 5.25, 𝛃 = 0.10, p < 0.05, η2= 0.00),
307 Revival (F(1, 547) = 11.27, 𝛃 = 0.15, p < 0.001, η2= 0.02), Sensation (F(1, 547) = 15.16, 𝛃 =
308 0.16, p < 0.001, η2= 0.02), Solace (F(1, 547) = 12.22, 𝛃 = 0.15, p < 0.001, η2= 0.02), and
309 Mental Work (F(1, 547) = 13.75, 𝛃 = 0.16, p < 0.001, η2= 0.02), subscales were also predicted
310 by COVID-19 severity across countries.
311

312
313 Fig 3. Association between COVID personal perceived risk and total music and mood regulation
314 score (B-MMR Total Score) across countries.
315
316 Individual differences and the function of music to regulate mood.
317 The state component of the STAI significantly predicted use of the B-MMR Discharge
318 strategy, across countries (F(1, 544) = 17.70, 𝛃 = 0.18, p < 0.0001, η2= 0.03) (see Figure 4).
319 State anxiety did not predict the use of any other B-MMR strategy (p > 0.05), nor B-MMR total
320 (p > 0.05).
321 PHQ-9 scores significantly predicted use of the B-MMR Discharge strategy, across
322 countries (F(1, 544) = 51.95, 𝛃 = 0.30, p < 0.0001, η2= 0.08) (see Figure 4). PHQ-9 scores did
323 not predict use of any other B-MMR strategy (p > 0.05).
324 The Fantasy component of empathy was positively associated with using music to
325 regulate mood (F(1, 541) = 33.98, p < 0.0001, 𝛃 = 0.23, η2= 0.05). This was particularly true for
326 the subscale of using music to regulate mood through Discharge (F(1, 541) = 8.52, 𝛃 = 0.12, p =
327 0.003, η2= 0.01), but also entertainment, sensation, diversion, mental work, and solace.
328
329 Fig 4. Association between STAI state anxiety scores and depression symptoms (PHQ score),
330 respectively, and B-MMR Discharge strategy across countries.
331
332 Using music to regulate mood and wellbeing
333 Mood change by country
334 A significant effect of country was observed on the use of music to improve mood (F(3,
335 545 = 17.89, p < 0.0001, η2= 0.09), where participants from India used music more to improve
336 mood than did participants from Italy (p < 0.001), the United Kingdom (p < 0.001), and the
337 United States (p < 0.001). Furthermore, across all countries, personal COVID-19 risk
338 significantly predicted the use of music to improve mood (F(1, 547) = 13.77, 𝛃 = 0.16, p< 0.001,
339 η2= 0.02). COVID-19 severity additionally predicted the use of music to improve mood across
340 countries (F(1, 547) = 13.90, 𝛃 = 0.16 p < 0.001, η2= 0.02).
341
342 Music in Mood Regulation
343 Across countries, using music to feel better was significantly associated with total scores
344 on the B-MMR (F(1, 544) = 348.39, 𝛃 = 0.63, p< 0.001, η2= 0.34), as well as many of the
345 subscales, including B-MMR Discharge (F(1, 544) = 36.98, η2 = 0.26, p < 0.0001, η2= 0.06),
346 Revival (F(1, 544) = 242.52, 𝛃 = 0.57, p < 0.0001, η2= 0.28), Diversion (F(1, 544) = 282.83, 𝛃 =
347 0.60, p < 0.0001, η2= 0.30), Solace (F(1, 544) = 259.96, 𝛃 = 0.59, p < 0.0001, η2= 0.30),
348 Mental work (F(1, 544) = 195.95, 𝛃 = 0.53), p < 0.0001, η2= 0.24), Entertainment (F(1, 544) =
349 159.02, 𝛃 = 0.50, p < 0.0001, η2= 0.21), and Sensation (F(1, 544) = 142.62, 𝛃 = 0.46, p <
350 0.0001, η2= 0.18) (see Figure 5).
351
352 Fig 5. Association of total music and mood regulation score (B-MMR Total Score) and use of
353 music to feel better during COVID-19 across countries.
354
355
356 Symptoms of depression and anxiety
357 PHQ-9 scores significantly predicted the use of music to feel better (F(1, 547) = 8.20, 𝛃
358 = 0.13, p < 0.01, η2= 0.01). Furthermore, while no significant interaction was found between
359 PHQ-9 scores and Discharge subscale in terms of using music to feel better (F(1, 545) = 0.43, 𝛃
360 = -0.02, p > 0.05, η2 < 0.01), there was a significant interaction between these two variables on
361 changes in mood since the start of the COVID-pandemic: that is, individuals who are more
362 depressed and don’t use music to discharge their negative feelings report feeling worse since
363 the start of the pandemic than individuals who are depressed and use music to discharge their
364 negative feelings (F(1, 546) = 5.76, 𝛃 = 0.09, p < 0.05, η2 = 0.01).
365 STAI state anxiety significantly predicted the use of music to feel better (F(1, 547) =
366 3.91, 𝛃 = 0.09, p < 0.01, η2= 0.01). STAI trait anxiety scores did not predict use of music to
367 feel better (p > 0.05). There was no interaction between any B-MMR strategy and state or trait
368 anxiety scores in use of music to feel better or change of mood since the start of the pandemic
369 (all ps > 0.05).
370
371 Emotion regulation
372 ERQ Reappraisal predicted using music to feel better across countries (F(1, 541) =
373 30.18, p < 0.001, η2= 0.05) (see Figure 6), where for all four countries, higher likelihood of
374 reappraisal was associated with greater positive mood change (𝛃 = 0.27). There was a
375 significant interaction between country and ERQ Suppression in using music to feel better (F(3,
376 541) = 3.06, η2= 0.01, p < 0.05), where ERQ Suppression predicted using music to feel better
377 in India (𝛃 = 0.25) more than Italy (𝛃 = -0.23), the United States (𝛃 = -0.38), and the United
378 Kingdom (𝛃 = -0.20) (see Figure 6).
379

380
381
382 Fig 6. Association between emotion regulation strategies (ERQ Suppression and Reappraisal,
383 respectively) and use of music to feel better during COVID-19, across countries.
384
385
386 Empathy
387 The Fantasy component of empathy was positively associated with using music to feel
388 better during the pandemic (F(1, 544) = 22.94, η2 = 0.19, p < 0.0001, η2= 0.04). Furthermore,
389 there is a significant interaction between being personally affected by the COVID-19 pandemic
390 and Fantasy-proneness on the Discharge component of the B-MMR (F(1, 542) = 4.63, η2 = -
391 0.09, p = < 0.05, η2= 0.01). That is, the relationship between Fantasy-proneness and using
392 music to discharge negative feelings was weakened in people who felt more personally at risk of
393 COVID-19 (see Figure 7). This relationship was not found for any other subscale of the B-MMR
394 nor was it found with actual risk-factors associated with COVID. This suggests that people who
395 are high in fantasy proneness are less likely to use music to discharge when feeling worse,
396 whereas people who are low in fantasy are more likely to use music to discharge when feeling
397 at risk of COVID.
398
399 Fig 7. Mediation of personal COVID risk on the relationship between fantasy proneness (IRI
400 fantasy factor) and Discharge strategy of B-MMR.
401
402
403 Changes in music listening habits
404 Audio analysis.
405 No significant within-subject effects of time (pre versus post COVID) were found for any
406 of the musical features extracted from Spotify. However, significant associations were found
407 between the musical features of songs listened to during COVID and individual differences.
408 COVID severity was negatively correlated with loudness (F(1, 358) = 4.50, 𝛃 = -0.10, p = 0.04,
409 η2= 0.01) and energy (F(1, 358) = 5.80, 𝛃 = -0.12, p = 0.02, η2= 0.01) and positively with
410 acousticness (F(1, 358) = 5.02, 𝛃 = 0.11, p = 0.03, η2= 0.01), suggesting that people who are
411 more strongly affected by COVID are choosing to listen to music that is calmer and quieter.
412 Acousticness and energy were also related to using music to discharge negative emotions, in
413 the opposite direction: people who are more likely to use music as a discharge reported
414 listening to more energetic (F(1, 358) = 4.99, η2 = 0.11, p = 0.03, η2= 0.01) and less acoustic
415 (F(1, 358) = 4.50, η2 = -0.11, p = 0.03, η2= 0.01) music during COVID. Finally, acousticness and
416 energy were correlated with using music to feel better during the pandemic, with acousticness
417 being positively correlated with feeling better (F(1, 358) = 9.42, 𝛃 = 0.16, p = 0.002, η2= 0.03)
418 and energy being marginally negatively correlated with feeling better (F(1, 358) = 3.46, η2 = -
419 0.10, p = 0.06, η2= 0.009). No significant interactions were found between musical features of
420 the music, COVID-severity, and feeling better.
421
422
423 Discussion
424
425 In this study, we attempted to quantify the degree to which music improved mood and wellbeing
426 during the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite varying levels of COVID-19 severity and risk, anxiety
427 and depression across four countries, we found a significant relationship between using music
428 for mood regulation and positive wellbeing. Countries with more COVID-19 cases at the time of
429 data collection reported higher rates of state anxiety with no differences in trait anxiety nor
430 depression. Across all four countries, people who were more personally affected by the
431 pandemic, showed more symptoms related to depression, or were feeling more anxious were
432 more likely to report using music to regulate mood. Using music to regulate mood also led to a
433 positive mood change during quarantine. These results suggest that music had a salubrious
434 impact on people during a global pandemic, transcending differences in culture, societal impact
435 of the pandemic, and musical background.
436
437 Multiple mood regulation strategies were related to positive wellbeing, though the use of these
438 strategies varied across countries and with individual differences. Using positive music as a
439 diversion and as a source of renewal were strongly correlated with feeling personally at risk for
440 COVID-19 as well as with positive mood change. This suggests that people who are feeling
441 particularly stressed by the pandemic are turning to pleasant, calming music to feel better. This
442 supports the recent finding that pleasant music led to decreased feelings of tiredness, sadness,
443 fear, and worry in Italian healthcare workers in a COVID-19 hospital (Giordano et al., 2020).
444
445 On the other hand, releasing negative emotions by listening to negative-valent music was
446 positively associated with symptoms of state anxiety and depression. Given that our analyses
447 are correlational, it is possible that that listening to negative-valent music increases feelings of
448 anxiety and depression. Alternatively, people who are more anxious and depressed may seek
449 out music that conveys negative emotions for its therapeutic potential. While our results cannot
450 directly resolve this uncertainty, there is evidence to suggest that the latter interpretation is more
451 likely. First, we found a positive relationship between depressive symptoms and the use of
452 music to improve mood during the pandemic. Second, we found a positive relationship between
453 using music to discharge emotions in general and improved mood through music-listening
454 during COVID specifically. And third, even though increased depression and anxiety were
455 associated with feeling worse during COVID, the relationship was weaker in people who
456 regulate their mood with music through the discharge strategy. Combined, these results suggest
457 that people who were stressed or sad during quarantine were able to use negative-valent music
458 to feel better, or at least, to feel less bad.
459
460 The Fantasy component of empathy was positively associated with using music to regulate
461 mood through the discharge of negative emotions as well as with a positive mood change. Our
462 previous work showed that Fantasy was associated with the enjoyment of sad music because it
463 was able to elicit strong, positive emotions, suggesting that Fantasy-prone individuals are
464 particularly suited to benefit from a discharge strategy when listening to negative-valence music
465 (Sachs et al., 2020). Interestingly, feeling personally at-risk for contracting COVID-19 weakened
466 the relationship between Fantasy and the discharge strategy, suggesting that the pandemic,
467 and the stress associated with it, may attenuate the positive emotional benefits of mentally
468 transporting into music. Whether listening to music congruent with one’s negative mood is
469 beneficial may therefore be contingent on the situation. Accordingly, in our previous study,
470 Fantasy-proneness was positively associated with listening to sad music specifically when
471 experiencing feelings of loneliness, but not when experiencing stress or anxiety (Sachs et al.,
472 2020). It may be that Fantasy-prone individuals selectively use music to discharge when feeling
473 general loneliness and sadness, but find this strategy less useful during periods of intensified
474 anxiety due to a personal COVID risk.
475
476 A key component of this study was the examination of music and emotion regulation strategies
477 across cultures. While participants from all countries reported using music to regulate emotions
478 during the pandemic, participants from India reported using positive-sounding music to regulate
479 mood through revival, diversion, and solace to a greater extent and ultimately reported feeling
480 more positively. This accords with Saarikallio et al. (2020), who reported that, as compared to
481 Finnish participants, individuals from India used music more as a mood regulation and
482 relaxation technique. People from India also reappraise more than people from the U.S. (Mehta
483 et al., 2017), experience less negative effects of emotional suppression (Cheung & Park, 2010),
484 and prefer to adjust and accommodate rather than to change or assert influence over
485 emotionally challenging situations (Savani et al., 2011). Here, we also found that participants in
486 India also reported using both suppression and reappraisal strategies to regulate their emotions
487 to a greater extent than participants from other countries (see Supplemental Materials). This
488 suggests that during such an uncontrollable and uncertain event like the COVID-19 pandemic,
489 music may be able to improve mood by both suppressing and reappraising emotional
490 responses, particularly for individuals living in India.
491
492 While we did not find significant within-participant differences between various musical features
493 of songs that people chose to listen to before and during the pandemic, we did find that people
494 who were more severely impacted by the pandemic tended to listen to music that was less loud
495 and energetic and more acoustic. Overall, the people who listened to softer, more acoustic
496 music also reported feeling better as a result of listening to music during the pandemic.
497 Interestingly, people who reported using music to discharge negative feelings actually preferred
498 music that was more energetic and less acoustic, which is consistent with the goal of using
499 music to purge or release negative emotions.
500
501 It is important to point out that the sample collected from each country may not be
502 representative of the country’s population. Specifically, the mean age of participants skewed
503 low, likely due to the online nature of the study. With this caveat in mind, we showed that across
504 four different countries in three different continents, listening to music to regulate mood was a
505 strong predictor of affective well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic. While the mechanisms
506 by which music is able to improve mood may change across people, the fundamental result is
507 the same. Music proves to be a powerful and salubrious tool during these unprecedented times.
508
509 Acknowledgments
510
511 The Brain and Music Program at the Brain and Creativity Institute is supported by the GRoW at
512 Annenberg Foundation, the Los Angeles Philharmonic Association and the Van Otterloo Family
513 Foundation. Additionally, thank you to Amita Padiyar for her contribution to this project.
514
515 Author Contributions
516
517 MS, JK, and AH developed the study concept. Data collection was performed by MS and SH.
518 MS and SH performed the data analysis. MS, SH, and AH drafted the manuscript, and JK
519 provided critical revisions. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript for
520 submission.
521
522 References
523
524 Adler, N. E., Epel, E. S., Castellazzo, G., & Ickovics, J. R. (2000). Relationship of subjective and
525 objective social status with psychological and physiological functioning: Preliminary data in
526 healthy white women. Health Psychology, 19(6), 586–592. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-
527 6133.19.6.586
528 Boer, D., Fischer, R., Tekman, H. G., Abubakar, A., Njenga, J., & Zenger, M. (2012). Young
529 people’s topography of musical functions: Personal, social and cultural experiences with
530 music across genders and six societies. International Journal of Psychology, 47(5), 355–
531 369. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207594.2012.656128
532 Chan, M. F., Wong, Z. Y., & Thayala, N. V. (2011). The effectiveness of music listening in
533 reducing depressive symptoms in adults: A systematic review. In Complementary
534 Therapies in Medicine (Vol. 19, Issue 6, pp. 332–348). Churchill Livingstone.
535 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctim.2011.08.003
536 Cheung, R. Y. M., & Park, I. J. K. (2010). Anger suppression, interdependent self-construal, and
537 depression among Asian American and European American college students. Cultural
538 Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 16(4), 517–525.
539 https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020655
540 Chin, T. C., & Rickard, N. S. (2012). The music USE (MUSE) questionnaire: An instrument to
541 measure engagement in music. Music Perception, 29(4), 429–446.
542 https://doi.org/10.1525/mp.2012.29.4.429
543 Davis, M. H. (1980). Self Report Measures for Love and Compassion Research: Empathy
544 INTERPERSONAL REACTIVITY INDEX (IRI). JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in
545 Psychology, 10(85), 3.
546 http://fetzer.org/sites/default/files/images/stories/pdf/selfmeasures/EMPATHY-
547 InterpersonalReactivityIndex.pdf
548 de la Torre-Luque, A., Caparros-Gonzalez, R. A., Bastard, T., Vico, F. J., & Buela-Casal, G.
549 (2017). Acute stress recovery through listening to Melomics relaxing music: A randomized
550 controlled trial. Nordic Journal of Music Therapy, 26(2), 124–141.
551 https://doi.org/10.1080/08098131.2015.1131186
552 Giordano, F., Scarlata, E., Baroni, M., Gentile, E., Puntillo, F., Brienza, N., & Gesualdo, L.
553 (2020). Receptive music therapy to reduce stress and improve wellbeing in Italian clinical
554 staff involved in COVID-19 pandemic: A preliminary study. Arts in Psychotherapy, 70,
555 101688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aip.2020.101688
556 Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual Differences in Two Emotion Regulation Processes:
557 Implications for Affect, Relationships, and Well-Being. Journal of Personality and Social
558 Psychology, 85(2), 348–362. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.348
559 Habibi, A., & Damasio, A. (2014). Music, feelings, and the human brain. Psychomusicology:
560 Music, Mind, and Brain, 24(1), 92–102. https://doi.org/10.1037/pmu0000033
561 Hanser, S., & Mandel, S. (2010). Manage your stress and pain through music.
562 https://doi.org/10.1093/jmt/49.4.453
563 Juslin, P. N., & Laukka, P. (2004). Expression, Perception, and Induction of Musical Emotions:
564 A Review and a Questionnaire Study of Everyday Listening. Journal of New Music
565 Research, 33(3), 217–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/0929821042000317813
566 Kroenke, K., Spitzer, R. L., & Williams, J. B. W. (2001). The PHQ-9: Validity of a brief
567 depression severity measure. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 16(9), 606–613.
568 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.016009606.x
569 Laukka, P. (2007). Uses of music and psychological well-being among the elderly. Journal of
570 Happiness Studies, 8(2), 215–241. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-006-9024-3
571 Loue, S., Mendez, N., & Sajatovic, M. (2008). Preliminary evidence for the integration of music
572 into HIV prevention for severely mentally Ill latinas. Journal of Immigrant and Minority
573 Health, 10(6), 489–495. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10903-008-9142-6
574 Mehta, A., Young, G., Wicker, A., Barber, S., & Suri, G. (2017). Emotion regulation choice:
575 Differences in US and Indian populations. The International Journal of Indian Psychology,
576 4(2), 202–219. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323218501
577 Miranda, D., & Gaudreau, P. (2011). Music listening and emotional well-being in adolescence: A
578 person- and variable-oriented study. Revue Europeenne de Psychologie Appliquee, 61(1),
579 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erap.2010.10.002
580 Miranda, Dave, & Claes, M. (2009). Music listening, coping, peer affiliation and depression in
581 adolescence. Psychology of Music, 37(2), 215–233.
582 https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735608097245
583 Palan, S., & Schitter, C. (2018). Prolific.ac—A subject pool for online experiments. Journal of
584 Behavioral and Experimental Finance, 17, 22–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbef.2017.12.004
585 Panteleeva, Y., Ceschi, G., Glowinski, D., Courvoisier, D. S., & Grandjean, D. (2018). Music for
586 anxiety? Meta-analysis of anxiety reduction in non-clinical samples. Psychology of Music,
587 46(4), 473–487. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735617712424
588 R Core, T. (2020). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for
589 Statistical Computing. https://www.r-project.org/
590 Randall, W. M., & Rickard, N. S. (2017). PERSONAL MUSIC LISTENING: A MODEL OF
591 EMOTIONAL OUTCOMES DEVELOPED THROUGH MOBILE EXPERIENCE SAMPLING.
592 https://doi.org/10.1525/MP.2017.34.5.501
593 Saarikallio, S. (2011). Music as emotional self-regulation throughout adulthood. Psychology of
594 Music, 39(3), 307–327. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735610374894
595 Saarikallio, S. (2012). Development and validation of the Brief Music in Mood Regulation scale
596 (B-MMR ). Music Perception, 30(1), 97–105. https://doi.org/10.1525/mp.2012.30.1.97
597 Saarikallio, S., Alluri, V., Maksimainen, J., & Toiviainen, P. (2020). Emotions of music listening
598 in Finland and in India: Comparison of an individualistic and a collectivistic culture.
599 Psychology of Music, 0305735620917730. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735620917730
600 Saarikallio, S., & Erkkilä, J. (2007). The role of music in adolescents’ mood regulation.
601 Psychology of Music, 35(1), 88–109. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735607068889
602 Saarikallio, S. H. (2012). Development and validation of the brief music in mood regulation scale
603 (B-MMR). Music Perception, 30(1), 97–105.
604 https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
605 Sachs, M. E., Damasio, A., & Habibi, A. (2020). Unique personality profiles predict when and
606 why sad music is enjoyed. Psychology of Music, 030573562093266.
607 https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735620932660
608 Savani, K., Morris, M. W., Naidu, N. V. R., Kumar, S., & Berlia, N. V. (2011). Cultural
609 Conditioning: Understanding Interpersonal Accommodation in India and the United States
610 in Terms of the Modal Characteristics of Interpersonal Influence Situations. Journal of
611 Personality and Social Psychology, 100(1), 84–102. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021083
612 Schäfer, T., Tipandjan, A., & Sedlmeier, P. (2012). The functions of music and their relationship
613 to music preference in India and Germany. International Journal of Psychology, 47(5),
614 370–380. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207594.2012.688133
615 Sloboda, J. A., O’Neill, S. A., & Ivaldi, A. (2001). Functions of Music in Everyday Life: An
616 Exploratory Study Using the Experience Sampling Method. Musicae Scientiae, 5(1), 9–32.
617 https://doi.org/10.1177/102986490100500102
618 Spielberger, C. D. (2010). State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. In The Corsini Encyclopedia of
619 Psychology (pp. 1–1). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
620 https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470479216.corpsy0943
621 Suda, M., Morimoto, K., Obata, A., Koizumi, H., & Maki, A. (2008). Emotional responses to
622 music: Towards scientific perspectives on music therapy. NeuroReport, 19(1), 75–78.
623 https://doi.org/10.1097/WNR.0b013e3282f3476f
624 Thoma, M. V., La Marca, R., Brönnimann, R., Finkel, L., Ehlert, U., & Nater, U. M. (2013). The
625 Effect of Music on the Human Stress Response. PLoS ONE, 8(8), e70156.
626 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0070156
627 Thoma, M. V., Ryf, S., Mohiyeddini, C., Ehlert, U., & Nater, U. M. (2012). Emotion regulation
628 through listening to music in everyday situations. Cognition and Emotion, 26(3), 550–560.
629 https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2011.595390
630 Thomson, C. J., Reece, J. E., & Di Benedetto, M. (2014). The relationship between music-
631 related mood regulation and psychopathology in young people. Musicae Scientiae, 18(2),
632 150–165. https://doi.org/10.1177/1029864914521422
633 Van den Tol, a. J. M., & Edwards, J. (2014). Listening to sad music in adverse situations: How
634 music selection strategies relate to self-regulatory goals, listening effects, and mood
635 enhancement. Psychology of Music. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735613517410
636 van Goethem, A., & Sloboda, J. (2011). The functions of music for affect regulation. Musicae
637 Scientiae, 15(2), 208–228. https://doi.org/10.1177/1029864911401174
638 Västfjäll, D. (2002). Influences of current mood and noise sensitivity on judgments of noise
639 annoyance. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 136(4), 357–370.
640 https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980209604163
641 Zoteyeva, V., Forbes, D., & Rickard, N. S. (2016). Military veterans’ use of music-based emotion
642 regulation for managing mental health issues. Psychology of Music, 44(3), 307–323.
643 https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735614566841
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656 Supplementary Materials
657
658
659

660
661
662 Supplementary Figure 1. Pairwise Pearson correlations for all behavioral measures of interest.
663
664
665
666
667
668
669 Supplementary Methods
670
671 COVID-19 questionnaire to assess distress related to COVID-19 pandemic
672
673 Seven YES/NO questions were asked to assess personal COVID-19 severity. This included the
674 following questions:
675 1. Do you personally know anyone that tested positive for COVID-19?
676 2. Do you personally know anyone that has been hospitalized due to COVID-19?
677 3. Do you personally know anyone that has passed away dues to COVID-19?
678 4. Have you made any changes to your daily lifestyle due to COVID-19?
679 5. Are you experiencing a financial loss due to COVID-19?
680 6. Is the area where you live under mandatory, “stay at home”, “shelter in place” order?
681 7. How much are you self-isolating (from 100% to None)
682
683 The COVID-19 severity portion also included self-assessment of perceived risk and personal
684 distress. These included the following questions:
685 1. In the past 4 weeks have you experienced any change in your mood? (from 1 -
686 significantly worse to 5 - significantly better)
687 2. In the past 4 weeks has your level of general anxiety changed? (from 1 - significantly
688 worse to 5 - significantly better)
689 3. Please rate the overall level of risk to you personally that you perceive from the COVID-
690 19 pandemic (from 1 - none to 5 - extreme)
691 4. How much of a threat do you think COVID-19 (coronavirus) is to the world? (from 1 -
692 none to 5 - extreme)
693
694 We also asked for change in mood as a result of COVID:
695 5. In the past 4 weeks has your level of general anxiety changed?
696 6. In the past 4 weeks have you experienced any change in your mood?
697
698
699
700 Additional predictors of subscales of the Brief Music in Mood Regulation Scale
701
702 The trait component of the STAI additionally predicted the use of B-MMR strategies of Revival
703 (F(1,544) = 9.57, p < 0.01, η2= 0.02), and Discharge (F(1,544) = 31.48, p < 0.0001, η2= 0.05),
704 where higher state anxiety was negatively associated with use of Revival as a strategy (𝛃 = -
705 0.14) and positively associated with use of Discharge (𝛃 = 0.25).
706 ERQ Suppression scores significantly predicted use of the B-MMR Revival strategy (F(1,
707 544) = 4.23, 𝛃 = 0.09, p < 0.05, η2= 0.01). ERQ Suppression did not predict use of any other B-
708 MMR strategy(p > 0.05). ERQ Reappraisal scores significantly predicted the use of total B-
709 MMR (F(1, 544) = 42.08, 𝛃 = 0.30, p < 0.0001, η2= 0.06). ERQ Reappraisal scores also
710 significantly predicted use of B-MMR Solace strategy (F(1, 544) = 29.92, 𝛃 = 0.23, p < 0.0001,
711 η2= 0.05), Revival (F(1, 544) = 53. 45, 𝛃 = 0.30, p < 0.0001, η2= 0.08), Entertainment (F(1,
712 544) = 33.08, 𝛃 = 0.24, p < 0.0001, η2= 0.05), Sensation (F(1, 544) = 42.74, 𝛃 = 0.26, p <
713 0.0001, η2= 0.06), Mental Work (F(1, 544) = 23.24, 𝛃 = 0.20, p < 0.0001, η2= 0.04).
714 A significant effect of country was also observed in the reappraisal component of the
715 ERQ (F(3, 545) = 6.04, p < 0.001, η2= 0.03), where participants from India reappraised more
716 than those from Italy (p < 0.05) and the United Kingdom (p < 0.001). A significant effect of
717 country was also observed in the suppression component of the ERQ (F(3, 545) = 17..04, p <
718 0.0001, η2= 0.08), where participants from India suppressed more than those from Italy (p <
719 0.0001), the United Kingdom (p < 0.0001), and the United States (p < 0.0001).
720
721
722
723 Additional playlist analyses
724
725 Reminiscence bump
726 Music that evokes autobiographical memories has been shown to induce positive
727 emotions (Maksimainen et al., 2018) and to mediate the relationship between emotion
728 regulation strategy and mental health (Blais-Rochette & Miranda, 2016). Memories evoked by
729 music are most strongly tied to songs from an individual’s “reminiscence bump” (Janata et al.,
730 2007) defined broadly as a 10-year period in the mid-to late adolescent years (Jansari & Parkin,
731 1996), characterized by rapid growth of social bonds and development of individual preferences.
732 Engaging with feelings of nostalgia, for example through memory-evoking songs, may protect
733 against feelings of loneliness and enforce a sense of personal meaning by reminding the
734 listener of periods of social connectedness and identify formation (Sedikides et al., 2008;
735 Wildschut et al., 2006). In the presence of a pandemic characterized by social isolation, it is
736 possible that music listening habits may shift to include more memory-evoking content.
737
738 In addition to audio analyses of the songs, we were interested to know if songs listened to pre or
739 post-COVID were more likely to fall within a participant’s reminiscence bump if it was released
740 when the participant was between the ages of 9 and 18. Reminiscence bump song percentage
741 was calculated as the proportion of listed songs within this age period to songs outside of this
742 age period. This was calculated for pre- and post-COVID songs separately, for Italy, the United
743 Kingdom, and the United States. A repeated-measures ANOVA was conducted for reminiscent
744 bump song percentage, with country as the between-subjects factor, and time as the within-
745 subjects factor.
746
747 No significant effect of time, country, or time x country interaction was observed on
748 reminiscence bump song percentage (p > 0.05).
749
750 Genre
751 Chi-square test of association was conducted to assess differences in musical genre
752 from pre- to post-COVID. There was a significant association between music genre and time (X2
753 (16, N = 480) = 416, p < 0.0001). Participants listened to classical (p < 0.001), jazz (p < 0.0001),
754 latin, rock (p < 0.001) music more pre-COVID-19 than post-COVID-19. Participants listened to
755 country (p < 0.0001), folk (p < 0.05), hip-hop (p < 0.01), K-pop (p < 0.0001), musical theater (p <
756 0.001), pop (p < 0.01), and trap (p < 0.0001) music post-COVID-19 than pre-COVID-19.
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766